I posted here to avoid further derailing the other thread.
In reference to what you stated, yes sorry I mistook you for Epicurus.
But I will address your point any way; Marx advocated the working class seizure of the state. The state would (in theory) be dismantled over time until there was an 'anarchy' (anarcho-communism). But that doesn't make him an anarcho-communist; anarcho-communists do not support the working class seizure of the state. Basically they (the anarcho-communists) support grass roots working class organisations to lay out the frame work for a post-statist society.
The Spainish Civil War of 1936 is an example of such an anarcho-communist revolution in which following the military dictator, Francisco Franco's attempted coup d'etat the anarchist syndicates (which had been in operation for 70 years) undermined his attempt through military power. This catalysed the revolution and the CNT-FAI (the collaboration of anarchist syndicates) seized land and property from land owners and 'the bourgeois'. They basically instilled mutualism; money was still used. It was essentially self-managed capitalism ('worker's capitalism') where workers trade goods and services through a federation of worker's councils and unions which are operated by plurality and rank and file. Money was abolished in some smaller, rural, village communities though. Eventually, the CNT (but not the FAI) collaborated with Liberal Democratic State in the fight against Franco who prolonged his attack on Spain until Hitler bombed Spainish food supplies and Franco was able to seize the state in 1939.
This could be contrasted, for instance to the Marxist-Lenninist approach in which a ''revolutionary vanguard' party seized the state and nationalised all property via a monopoly on coercion (the state).
Somewhere 'in between' Marxism and Anarcho-Communism would be the authoritarian workers' communes in The Paris Commune.
In case you have not read yet, I have since parted from all that economically iliterate nonsense.